San Bernardino to decide fate of city charter changes

SAN BERNARDINO >> Thursday comes the final vote on whether to put proposed amendments to the city charter up for a vote of the people.

Of five amendments suggested by a citizen review committee and discussed at a series of City Council meetings, the council has narrowed its focus to two possible changes they hope could save the city money.

One would eliminate a guarantee that police and firefighters be paid the average of what 10 other cities with 100,000 to 250,000 people pay. Instead, pay would be set by collective bargaining as it is for other city employees — long a flash point in the city and the focus of most citizens’ charter comments, pro and con, since before the review committee recommended it.

The provision, Section 186, also sets positions and hours for the Fire Department.

When the recommendation came, Mayor Carey Davis said he understood the city can’t underpay its public safety personnel.

“However, I support the committee’s suggestion that salaries should be determined by market forces and our ability to pay,” Davis wrote in one message. “The modifications to Section 186 do NOT represent an automatic pay decrease but it does provide some flexibility to the Council and our public safety personnel with regard to salary discussions which will still be subject to California Law.”

Fire union president Jeff English defended the existing language in a statement.

“Since 1955, Charter Section 186 has worked successfully to remove politics from determining firefighter salaries with an objective average wage formula,” English said. “Repealing 186 would be a political action that would divide the community and damage the city’s ability to move forward. Firefighters are confident that the people of San Bernardino will stand with us in opposing the repeal of Charter Section 186.”

The other proposed change would end the practice of paying any employee who has been terminated or demoted until that employee has the chance to appeal the city’s decision to the civil service board.

Advertisement

At its previous meeting, the council decided not to pursue other proposed changes. Those would have added a potentially sweeping statement that if multiple interpretations of a provision are possible, the one enabling the city applies; eliminated language governing the school district, which the district doesn’t use; and replaced the city’s policy for recalls and initiatives with state policy.

The council has the option of putting either proposed change on the ballot, both on the ballot as one item, both separately, or taking no action.